One-child policy yields multiple woes

Jan 04, 2011 By Heather Wuebker

China recently marked the 30th anniversary of the launch of its one-child-per-couple policy. Intended to curtail the nations burgeoning population, it has produced a serious gender imbalance, a ballooning percentage of seniors and a dwindling labor force, says Wang Feng, UC Irvine sociology professor and senior fellow and director of the Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy in Beijing.

Such conditions, he notes in Science magazine, heighten the social and economic instability that the single-child edict was designed to address. Here, Wang Feng discusses policy results, Chinas changing demographic makeup and implications for the countrys future.

Q: How has the one-child policy affected fertility levels in China, and what does this mean for the national labor force?

A: As much as government officials in China like to advertise the role of the one-child policy in controlling Chinas population growth, the policys effect is limited. Fertility decline is a global trend and not limited to China alone. During the first decade after implementation of the one-child policy, the fertility level in China hardly changed. In countries that do not have a similarly forceful policy  such as South Korea, Thailand and Brazil  fertility has declined by roughly the same magnitude since the late 1970s. For China, the fertility level started to dip below the replacement level of 2.1 children per couple after the nations accelerated economic takeoff in the 1990s. This trend is similar to that seen in other countries during times of economic growth.

Today, we see the effects in Chinas more than 150 million one-child families, located primarily in urban areas. Fertility reduction driven by forces other than the one-child policy has created a rapidly declining young labor force and a rapidly increasing population of the aged. The one-child policy has accelerated this process. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of Chinese workers in their 20s shrank by nearly 15 percent, and the trend will continue.

Q: What does the future hold for China if it continues on its current track?

A: Enormous challenges. With a current fertility level at around 1.5 children per couple, Chinas overall population will encounter rapid aging that will go unmatched in new births. This will lead to an eventual population decline. China has a life expectancy thats only a few years shorter than that of developed nations but a per capita income level thats about one-tenth of theirs. Rapid aging poses tremendous challenges for both public and private old-age support. At the current fertility and mortality levels, China is expected to have 240 million elderly  aged 60 and over  in 2020 and 340 million in 2030, which is about one-quarter of the total population. This means not only higher taxes for the working population  of which there are fewer to tax  but also increased costs associated with healthcare.

Q: Is this trajectory reversible, and what can be done to restore a more balanced population in China?

A: The trajectory is irreversible. However, my colleagues and I have studied areas in China exempted from the one-child policy and found that while population growth was not any faster, the sex ratio at birth was much more balanced and individual families were spared the physical abuse that occurred during the forceful implementation of the one-child policy elsewhere.

Q: How are you trying to effect change in China?

A: As a scholar, my main mission  and that of my colleagues  is fact finding. Through research, we provide policymakers and the public with evidence of Chinas demographic shift and the role of the one-child policy in this process. We have in the last decade ascertained the current fertility policy requirement in China, the level of fertility and its trends, and the reasons for the recent fertility decline. In addition to formulating policy proposals, we have also taken our message to the public. Its our hope that our research and advocacy can facilitate responsible public policy.

A team of researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the Università Bocconi in Milan have released a study that challenges one of the most established and accepted standards in the social sciences: Human fertility ...

China’s efforts to control population growth in the present may cause problems for the county’s senior citizens in the future. This prediction comes from a Saint Louis University School of Medicine researcher who spent ...

Recommended for you

A new study by California scientists has linked chronic exposure to microscopic air pollutants in vehicle exhaust to deaths from heart disease. The finding bolsters evidence that ultrafine particles, which are not regulated ...

Attendance at schools exposed to high levels of traffic-related air pollution is linked to slower cognitive development among 7-10-year-old children in Barcelona, according to a study published by Jordi Sunyer ...

Before she got pregnant in 2014, Lizzy King, 28, of East Lansing, Mich., gave herself a "lifestyle overhaul." She started running and lost 50 pounds. She eschewed processed food and ate her first banana.

Smokers have become accustomed to stepping outside at bars and restaurants. But has the change in rules governing enclosed public places inspired enough of them to smoke less behind their own closed doors ...

Most people consume more salt than they need and therefore have a higher risk of heart disease and stroke, which are the two leading causes of death worldwide. But a study published by Cell Press March 3rd ...

It sounds simple, but it appears to be working: Give homeless people financial help to find free-market rental accommodation in the community as well as mental health support services, and the success rate in ending their ...

User comments : 157

Ironically, the U.S. and Europe are experiencing "demographic winter" for the same reason, as couples "voluntarily" have fewer and fewer children.

Personally, I think social engineernig pressures from the progressives and the government in general are pushing the family to be smaller and smaller. However, this is disasterous as we are about to discover in earnest in the U.S. as the Baby Boomer generation all retires early and with ridiculous 100k per year government pensions.

Hopefully computer technology and nano-assembly will "somehow" enable us to provide for these people, as the policies in place have effectively made us, the younger generations, into these people's slaves for the next 30 to 40 years or more.

It is Ironic that the bad old communists did this by force and everyone complained...then they turned around and did the same things to themselves by choice in U.S. and Europe...

"It is Ironic that the bad old communists did this by force and everyone complained...then they turned around and did the same things to themselves by choice in U.S. and Europe" - Wombat Boy

I'm not sure what your confused little imagination thinks the "communists did to them by force", but that statement certainly shows how deeply foncused you are.

As for doing it to yourselves, lets be clear about who did the doing. Borrow and spend Republicans, starting with Reagan. Borrow and spend Republicans who vowed to destroy their own government for creating an economic crisis that would allow them to eventually starve their nation of the funds needed for basic operations.

"We need to manufacture an (economic) crisis, in order to assure that there are no alternatives to a smaller government." - Jeb Bush, Imprimus magazine 1995.

You don't even know the issues, which even the liberal news media are being forced to admit now. One of the major things breaking the governments at the state and local levels is people retiring with 100% of income, often 100k or more, and because of LIBERAL LABOR UNIONS who refuse to concede on these outrageous conditions, the governments cannot do anything about it to curb this.

And in any case, the baby boomers will push the U.S. to about 80 million people on medicare over the next 10 years, or roughly 1/4th of the population. Yet medicare and social security are already underfunded for their current levels, and make up by far the largest items on the U.S. budget already.

if you want to cut government, you need to cut the gravy train to grandma and grandpa first, followed by abuse of EIC and refundable child tax credits and "head of household" filing status, because that is fast going to make up the majority share of "government" within just a few years

Under the right circumstances,a "couple" can illegally file "head of household" status independently, and each get several thousand dollars worth of deductions and refundable tax credits, including EIC and Child Tax Credits that they are not supposed to qualify for, and they do this all the time and aren't caught.

"One of the major things breaking the governments at the state and local levels is people retiring with 100% of income, often 100k or more." - ConservaTard of Tards

Philip Morris, the tobacco company whose benefit package has been repeatedly touted by Money magazine as having the best benefits in the nation. A 25-year employee who retirees at age 60 receives pension checks that equal about 40% of the employees final pay, said spokesman Bill Phelps. Add in the average payout from the companys deferred profit-sharing plan -- in which employee contributions are matched by a variable company contribution, depending on Phillip Morris net income -- and the average retirees compensation is boosted to 53% of final pay.

The California Public Employees' Retirement System uses a multiplier of 2% for most workers, who also participate in Social Security, said spokesman Brad Pacheco. As a result, employees with 30 years service can retire at 55 with pensions equal to 60% of their pay, although their benefit is reduced by whatever they get from Social Security.

Why is it that whenever I encounter an American ConservaTard, I find them to be spouting a nonstop stream of Lies?

"Yet medicare and social security are already underfunded for their current levels, and make up by far the largest items on the U.S. budget already." - ConservaTard of Tards

The American Traitors that make up the Republican party should have spent less time Lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction and less time starving Social Security and Medicare of funds while funneling those funds to the American Military Industrial Complex.

VD - Progressives do not care about normal people only the elite. Conservatives care about all people. We don't want people to die and do everything we can to prevent people from dying. Progressives are the ones that setup death pannels, raise costs, lie, cheat and steal.

The majority of doctors in the US and around the world are against socialized health care, because it results in more death, pain and hardships.

I just talked to someone who comes from South Africa. There if you go into the hospital, take your blanket with you when you go to the bathroom. If not, someone will steal your blanket. That is where progressives will take health care. Unless your are in the elite. Then you will have private doctors.

For those who are for abortion, what is wrong with killing unborn baby girls. To you they are not human.

Nobody is for abortion. A lot of people, however, are for the right of women to choose.Personally, I'm opposed to people who deny women the right to decide what happens with their bodies. Especially men ought not to be allowed to violate women's right of self-determination.

The wilful definition that a human person begins with conception is just one of men's historic tools to subdue women.

I severely doubt that anti-choice promoters hold the life of a person in high esteem as most of them have no problems with death penalty, "collateral damages", and aggressive warfare.I yet have to meet somebody who is anti-choice and at the same time against death penalty and war.

Pro-life people believe all people have equal rights, and have a right to life. Choice has nothing to do with our arguments.

Pro-abortion people believe that abortion is ok. That all people do not have the same rights. I find it ironic that most (not all) pro-abortionists are anti-capital punishment. They will defend the right to kill the unborn child of a rapist, but not execute the rapist. They will defend the right to life of horrible murderers, yet have no issue with killing of a inocent child.

Pro-abortion position does not hold in esteem the inocent, the defenseless, the weak, nor the sick. The Pro-abortion stance dehumanizes society.

Pro-abortion people believe that abortion is ok. That all people do not have the same rights

As a pro-choice conservative, I can tell you your 2nd sentence is not true. I do not believe that one stem cell = 1 santient being. I believe a full human body, with a functioning brain that has achieved consciousness = 1 santient being with rights. Until that stem cell grows to the point where consiesnous flickers on, no person exists. I'm not arguing abortion with you. I'm just informing you of where my decisions come from regarding this. If there's no person, it's impossible for there to be a "murder". We can agree to disagree on when a person begins, but to say that I believe that not all people have the same rights is incorrect. We simply disagree on the definition of "a person".

I wasn't aware people were attempting to refute the Chinese forced abortions.

I'm not one to defend QC's continual anti-evolutionist posts, but on the forced abortions, QC's right.

BTW, VD, you're spouting lots of hate against an entire group of Americans (including myself) simply because you disagree with their politics. That type of language and behavior is unbecoming on this site. As much as I disagree with leftist politics, I do my best to be respectful of our differences. I'm requesting you do the same.

Here's a sampling of your hate speech in this thread alone:

Conservative KookTardConservaTard of Tardswhenever I encounter an American ConservaTard, I find them to be spouting a nonstop stream of Lies?ConservaTard of TardsConservaTard of Tardsshows how deeply foncused you ConservaTards areConservative Americans who vote for Conservative Governments believe that their countrymen should die in the streetcorrupt and hopelessly immoral conservative

CSharpner, I agree with you with the hate speech. However I think hate speech should be allowed it shows their true hate and stupidity.

We agree on frying rapists and murderers.

What we disagree on is when a human is a human. Simple biology is that sperm is a part of a body, just like an egg is a part of a body. Unite them, they are a fully human. Deny them humanity denigrates all humans. It is not for us to play God and say that human is less valuable because of age.

YEP, I'M WELL AWARE OF ALL THE ANTI-ABORTION STANCES... I WAS BORN, GREW UP IN, AND STILL LIVE IN THE BUCKLE OF THE BIBLE BELT. WE NOW KNOW EACH OTHERS REASONS FOR OUR STANCE AND WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE. NO NEED TO DEBATE ABORTION. NO ONE EVER CHANGES THEIR MIND.

AS FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD GETTING TAX PAYER MONEY, THAT SHOULD HAVE STOPPED A LONG TIME AGO. IF ANYONE THINKS PP needs external funding, let them pony up from their own purse.

I'm not a supporter of PP, but I AM pro-abortion... not just pro-choice. obviously, since I know it's not a person, I know it can't be murder and therefore, can't find any fault with it. It's no different from choosing not to get pregnant in the first place. And if more people chose not to get pregnant, then our resource problems would shrink. our current population growth is unsustainable. These decisions, of course, should be a choice.

What we disagree on is when a human is a human. Simple biology is that sperm is a part of a body, just like an egg is a part of a body. Unite them, they are a fully human.

No, and you've been told this a thousand times. At conception you don't even have a potential human until the fertilized cell implants itself into the endometrium. Your lack of knowledge on reproduction is deplorable.

Lying to someone or repeating a false statement a 1000 times does not make a false statement or the lie true. It is the pro abortionists that lie or have a lack of knowledge on reproduction.

Biologically speaking the truth is , a human is formed at conception. Whether you want to confer human rights to that individual is the issue. I do, you don't.

Honesty is the best policy. Abortion kills a human. This is not even a religious statmentent. The religious beliefs come into it when I say all humans have the same rights.

The problem is pro-abortionists have such a mental block they cannot bring themselves to admit the scientific fact that at conception we have a human. Be honest you do not want certain groups of humans to have human rights because ... it is inconvient, because they are sick, because they ...

Biologically speaking the truth is , a human is formed at conception. Whether you want to confer human rights to that individual is the issue. I do, you don't.

Are you making a scientific, philosophical, or religious assertion here? Because quite honestly I fail do see any evidence that "biologically speaking" a collection of a few cells is a human being.

In fact I'm not sure philosophically, or even religiously speaking it is.

Please clarify.

Now to be clear, I don't think ANYONE has an adequate definition...the other side included. However, I can't let you off the hook either when you're making a positive claim about when life begins, any more than someone who says they KNOW it starts at X number of weeks.

MM, think about it logically without pro or against abortion thinking.Sperm and Egg if left alone will naturally die, it won't grow into a human no matter where they are placed (un-united). They are nothing more than a cell of a human. Put the two together, they then from a unique human individual, that begin to grow. They are not a potential human individual, they are an actual human individual. Yes some of these unique human individuals die right away, but all humans die.

Potential human is a ununited sperm cell or egg cell. Scientifically once they are united they are a unique individual human.

Religiously I have a belief of when a soul enters into the body and it is sometime after conception, but since I am not God, I fall back on science to determine when a human is formed, as it is the soundest moral position.

SH Though I use scientific reasons for considering that a unique individual is formed at conception, I do have a belief that a soul enters into the body after conception. Since I am not God and don't know which union becomes a unique soul embodied person, I go to science. However the bible does talk about unborn babies as alive right from conception, and deserve protection.

SH your lack of knowledge and ignorance of Christianity never ceases to amaze me

You might want to turn that back on yourself and think about it again. The Bible establishes that life is dependent on blood.

Your body doesn't generate it's own blood until after you're born, until that time you're running on your mother's borrowed blood. Which means in regards to abortion, it would be the mother's choice and not murder according to your religion.

CSharpner, I agree with you with the hate speech. However I think hate speech should be allowed it shows their true hate and stupidity.

But,

Progressives do not care about normal people only the elite.... Progressives are the ones that setup death pannels, raise costs, lie, cheat and steal.

is hate speech.

You're taking a group of people, labeling them all the same, and judging them based on your generalizations. You also take what people say in comments on the internet (and, I'm assuming, real life) and infer their stances on a number of issues based on whatever group you decide to put them into based on the small interaction you've had with them.

The problem is pro-abortionists have such a mental block they cannot bring themselves to admit the scientific fact that at conception we have a human.

A mental block shows up when still today someone uses ancient prescientific perceptions of how human beings are made combined with ancient inhuman perceptions about the inferior worth of a woman's life.

Be honest you do not want certain groups of humans to have human rights because ... it is inconvient, because they are sick, because they ...

The certain group that is massively disadvantaged in this kind of thinking are the women.Why is this so? Because soldiers used (I refrain from discussing present times) to rape the women of defeated enemies. Because rape is the privilege of men.

Life began billions of years ago (or thousands, if it makes you feel better). It hasn't stopped since then. Sperm are alive. Human eggs are alive. When they join, there's no NEW life. There's the CONTINUATION of life.

It's not a new LIFE; it's a new ORGANISM. Though, all people are organisms, not all organisms are people. When a sperm and egg join, they morph into a single stem cell. It's nothing spectacrular, biologically speaking; it's just a stem cell and stem cells are not people; they're stem cells. You have millions of stem cells in your body. You don't have millions of people in your body. There's no reason to give special significance to a stem cell because of where it sits.

Put one in the right environment, and it'll divide and continue to. For a while, it's just a clump of stem cells. Eventually, some of them will start turning into specialized cells. (BTW, no new blood yet).continued...

These stem cells will continue to turn into specialized cells, forming limbs and organs. Eventually there's a heart and evenually later that heart will start beating.

BUT! Until there's a brain and until that brain flickers on it's first awareness, the best that can be said is that there's an empty, biological shell. There's no "person" until there's consiousness, which requires a degeloped, biological shell, with a functioning brain.

When that brain ceases to function, the person ceases to exist, even if you hook the shell to machinery to force oxygen into the blood to keep the organs fresh. No brain, no person.

Now, I'm not saying any of this with either the expectation nor the intent to convert anyone. This is simply an explanation as to why many of us don't believe abortion is murder.

This is not a debate. I fully expect those that disagree to simply say, "Thanks for the explanation. I disagree, but I understand you believe what you say and aren't dishonest"

CS, there's an even more simple refutation for FT's statement of the two having seperate and individual blood supplies.

Why would a mother ever need a rhogam shot if her blood was not able to physically intermingle and do damage to the antigen protein D, (otherwise known as Rh factor), programmed plasma of the child? Simple answer, if FT's statement was accurate she wouldn't. Then again, we know that she will need a rhogam shot because after her first child, the next would be killed through erythroblastosis fetalis which is destruction of protein factor due to antibodies, which are carried by blood, through the placenta and into the newborn.

I'm not gonna lie, this is a TOUGH issue for me. Actually it's easily the toughest issue in politics for me, no contest. I see both sides, and in case some of you missed it...I'm not a "both sides" kind of person. Especially when it comes to issues of literal life and death.

I grudgingly come down on the side of being not pro-choice, but rather being for the continued legality of abortion within strict guidelines...because I know that a collection of a few cells does not a person make. I also feel that people who take the issue casually (and there are a lot of them) make me squirm inside.

I just want to be damn sure we error on the side of caution. I think a life and death issue deserves nothing less...

SH - By your definition, a person who receives a blood donation is now one with the donor because of comingling of blood. A unborn baby makes their own blood cells. Using RH factor is stupid beyond belief. If I was your bilogoy professor, I'd flunk you and send you to kindergarten for a biology lesson. Maybe I should track you down (just kidding of course, your not worth my time) so I can confirm that you are taking an advanced biology course, then if you are, let your professor know how stupid you are in biology. BTW getting biology lessions from Planned Parenthood doesn't count.

FACTS

A unborn babies heart starts beating at 6 weeks from last menstration or between 21-28 Days from Fertilization.

MM - I disagree with you as you are not being consistent. The only reason for abortion is if the physical life of the mother is at stake. The reason is that the INTENT is not to kill, but to save.

Csharpners arguments fall apart. We give respect, and care for people who are in a vegetative state. If I go into a hospital and shoot and kill someone in a vegetative state, I will be charged with murder. If we know that a person is in a vegetative state, and if we KNOW with high likelihood that they will recover, we will do everything we can to allow them to recover.

A unborn baby is fully human, and will gain senses. Anyone who denies this and who says they have taken biology, is either a raven lunatic, a liar or an idiot.

The only reason for abortion is if the physical life of the mother is at stake.

I see - you think it's morally correct to force a woman raped by an enemy soldier to give birth.By pretending to save the life of a human person you are reducing women to birthing machines.Nowhere in your texts you take into consideration the physical and psychical fate of women.

SH - By your definition, a person who receives a blood donation is now one with the donor because of comingling of blood.

No, and now you're being intentionally ignorant.

A unborn baby makes their own blood cells.

Using what spleen or bone marrow?

Using RH factor is stupid beyond belief.

Because it entirely refutes your argument and you can't come up with a reply? That would mean that your continued bravado on the subject is "stupid beyond belief."

Maybe I should track you down (just kidding of course, your not worth my time) so I can confirm that you are taking an advanced biology course, then if you are, let your professor know how stupid you are in biology. BTW getting biology lessions from Planned Parenthood doesn't count.

Csharpners arguments fall apart. We give respect, and care for people who are in a vegetative state. If I go into a hospital and shoot and kill someone in a vegetative state, I will be charged with murder. If we know that a person is in a vegetative state, and if we KNOW with high likelihood that they will recover, we will do everything we can to allow them to recover.

Again, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just letting you know where I come from. I'm NOT trying to get you to change your mind about abortion, only to give you an idea of where we come from on the pro-choice side. We won't accomplish anything doing a tit-for-tat on each point. I can argue against your statement above, but I choose not to because my intent is not to argue or change your mind... It is simply to give you an understanding of why I have the opinion I do. My only expectation from you is...

Had to respond to the vegetative state issue though: I've already worked this out years ago for myself. There's a difference between a vegetative state (or any state of unconsciousness) and an embryo. The difference is that an embryo is a shell that's never hosted consciousness. The person hasn't existed yet. This is where I, personally, draw the line. There's a significant difference to me between an existing mind (mind, not "brain") who is currently unconscious vs nothingness, which is what exists inside an embryo... nothingness.

Again, this is not an attack against pro-life opinions... It's simply a defense of my own opinion. This is a philosophical question and not an absolute (regardless of how strong the emotions are of the people holding their opinions). The fact is, no one really knows (in spite of the fact they think they do). My determination for what a person is, is a conscious mind (or one that may be currently unconscious, but has stored memories).

Without that, I cannot comprehend the existence of a person, since, as you can see, by MY definition of a person, an embryo is clearly not one.

Yet again, I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their mind about abortion. I am simply explaining why *I* have the opinion I do. If you wish to engage me in a discussion, feel free to. I'm probably the only person you'll come across who's open to it and I am fully accepting for changing my mind, but to change MY mind:

1. You must be open to changing YOUR mind too.2. You must address MY definition of what a person is and explain how a person can exist before consciousness, which will be difficult for you to do since my definition of a person IS consiousness.3. We can agree to disagree and I'm perfectly comfortable with that. I don't hate you nor even have ill feelings toward you for disagreeing. In fact, if you believe it is murder, I would lose respect for you if you didn't act to protect what you believe is innocent person.

I would lose respect for you if you didn't act to protect what you believe is an innocent person... even though I believe you're mistaken. I would, however, ask you to seriously consider whether you're right or not, because if you're wrong, you're forcing innocent women to bear the pain of 9 months of pregnancy, damaging their bodies, and the extreme pain of child birth, and life changing effects of such, based on what you THINK is a higher moral calling. If you're wrong and you succeed in preventing innocent women from removing the tissue growth inside of them, you are doing enormous harm to the woman and her family.

The only reason for abortion is if the physical life of the mother is at stake.

I see - you think it's morally correct to force a woman raped by an enemy soldier to give birth.By pretending to save the life of a human person you are reducing women to birthing machines.Nowhere in your texts you take into consideration the physical and psychical fate of women.

Woah...OK then let's be clear here Fraj.

I think you and I agree that rape is an unqualified legitimate reason to have an abortion. However something about the tone of your response lead me to think, and I certainly could be "putting words in your mouth", that it would be OK to abort the baby past the currently accepted guidelines simply because it was rape.

Let's be clear, even if it was rape you can't kill something we've legally defined as a person because something horrible happened to a woman. Can we?

"At the current fertility and mortality levels, China is expected to have 240 million elderly - aged 60 and over - in 2020 and 340 million in 2030, which is about one-quarter of the total population."

Which is ok, because then people can work longer like the rest of the world. In china the legal retirement age in China is 60 for men and 55 for most women. Perfectly healthy, able-bodied people can work instead of sitting around in parks playing chess. After theyre done rioting and being all huffy about it, like the greeks that is.

Potential human is a ununited sperm cell or egg cell. Scientifically once they are united they are a unique individual human.

I take special exception to this religionist misusing the term 'scientific' in in concert with any one of his distinctly unscientific opinions. Anyone else catch the absurdity?

Your built-in perception filters do protect you against overstraining your input processing circuitry. Unfortunately for you/fortunately for us they are clearly visible outside of your hull as nearly anybody except you has no problem to see the difference between "mothers' right to choose what happens to their body" and "killing a bunch of human cells".

If a women is raped, scrape out that cluster of cells and toss it into an embryonic stem cell donation tub. You do not have the right to take away a womans freedom by turning her into a walking incubator. It's wonderful to derail her career, possibly override her decision to ever have children and when she wants them, force her and her family to accommodate the will of a rapist as the womans body contorts and adapts, reminding her of her attack,and foot the healthcare costs of pregnancy. Then the can put it up for adoption which is great because every child in an orphanage is adopted the first week. Plus, we have so much money as a country we can afford to raise orphaned children as long as needed.

And I'm for killing the rapist. There you go, a liberal who favors capital punishment as an efficient method of disposal.

Frajo, you are correct. I am for capital punishment only for cases where there is no way anyone else could have committed the offense.

SH - biology is biology. It is the abortionists who need to be truthful, not the pro-life camp.

Csharpner - For you or any pro-abortionists to gain my respect, they must admit basic science and admit that a human life is formed at concpetion, and that they do not want to give rights to that individual until a certain development.

To be precise: You are for killing that person you are convinced of to be a rapist. Although you are aware that your conviction may be wrong. In dubio contra reum.

And you are for putting people in jail for a LONG time you are convinced of being a rapist...although you're aware your conviction may be wrong. In dubio contra reum. What a horrible ****ing person you are. how do you live with yourself???

Csharpner - For you or any pro-abortionists to gain my respect, they must admit basic science and admit that a human life is formed at concpetion, and that they do not want to give rights to that individual until a certain development.

Yeah, I can admit that. The thing is, life is not worth protecting, human or non-human. Only persons are worth protecting, again human and non-human (for example, intelligent aliens, sentient AIs, and some people want to protect even higher primates).

If I was a judge and I was convinced they are a rapist then I am for locking them away.If I was a judge and no one else could have committed the crime, then death.BTW I live with myself very well.If I was judge and I found out someone lied deliberately and their lie cause jail time, then that person will finish out the full time of the one convicted. If it lead to a death sentence, then they will face the death sentence.

Call me horrible, but I am not for murderers or rapists walking the streets.

ShotmanMalo, you have my respect. I consider all humans worthy of full human rights. You consider only humans, whom you deem a person, worthy of full human rights.Now please define which humans you consider persons. Thanks

If I was a judge and I was convinced they are a rapist then I am for locking them away.If I was a judge and no one else could have committed the crime, then death.BTW I live with myself very well.If I was judge and I found out someone lied deliberately and their lie cause jail time, then that person will finish out the full time of the one convicted. If it lead to a death sentence, then they will face the death sentence.

Call me horrible, but I am not for murderers or rapists walking the streets.

Aw, youve been reading Sharia, shame on you.

For you or any pro-abortionists to gain my respect, they must admit basic science and admit that a human life is formed at concpetion

-And who would want respect from someone who thinks like this? You have no respect for science. You neither understand it nor respect the opinions of those who do. You should not be misusing the term to foist your religionist agenda. It is extremely dishonest.

ShotmanMalo, you have my respect. I consider all humans worthy of full human rights. You consider only humans, whom you deem a person, worthy of full human rights.Now please define which humans you consider persons. Thanks

Humans that have nervous system capable of sufficient level of sentience are the ones I consider persons (or beings). This does not include humans first few months after conception. It also does not include for example humans with destroyed brain, but capable of living in vegetative state on life support (I think there are such cases, not sure tough..).

Killing such humans should not be murder, because in the first case they dont exist yet as a person, and in the second case they are already dead as a person.

SH - biology is biology. It is the abortionists who need to be truthful, not the pro-life camp

Show me where I, as a pro-choice advocate, have been untruthful. Then we can look at the multitude of places within which you have not been truthful outside of your own limited and ignorant understanding of reality.

All this nonsense simply goes back to your lust for power over the weaker sex. It's just that simple.

Csharpner - For you or any pro-abortionists to gain my respect, they must admit basic science and admit that a human life is formed at concpetion, and that they do not want to give rights to that individual until a certain development.

That's unfortunate because as I've explained, I do not believe that a new person exists at the "moment" of conception. It's unfortunate if the only way you will respect someone is if they come to the same conclusion as you do. I've looked and studied the biology the only time I can conceive of a person is when there is first consciousness.

I respect people that respect an honest effort at conclusions. I'm not in a pageant for your respect. I've explained that I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong and that I'm right and I've respected your different opinion on the topic and still do, but to say you only respect people that agree with you is just wrong AND disrespectful.

As I've explained, I do not believe that two molecules (one in the sperm, one in the egg) that perform nothing more than a mechanical zipping up is anything special. That's NOT a "human life". It's a cell that's human (just like any single cell in my body is "human", it's not *A* human.

I cannot "give" rights to anyone. Rights are unalianable. I believe they begin when the person begins and as you know, I believe the person begins when consiousness begins. I could be rude and argue with you and really push you to try to "admit" that I'm right, but I'm not here for that. I'm simply explaining to you how I come to the conclusion I did.

Again, I expect nothing from you other than, "Thanks for the explanation, I still disagree, but I understand where you're coming from." To say that you disrespect me, even after I've given a full explanation of why I believe what I do and it is clearly an honest explanation, is just logically and ethically wrong.

they must admit basic science and admit that a human life is formed at concpetion

Again, as I've explained, life began a looooong time ago, whether you believe it was thousands or billions of years ago is irrelevant to this discussion. The sperm is "alive" and so is the egg. The two DNA molecules in them come into close proximity and perform a mechanical zipping up. There's no "new" life there. It's the same atoms in the sperm DNA and the same atoms in the egg DNA. Now, they're just in closer proximity. "life" is still going on... it's CONTINUING. Life didn't originate from non-living material during this process. It's now NEW life. Do you understand and agree that it's not new life, that it's continuing life?

Now, I believe what you actually mean is that it's a new ORGANISM (what I think you're calling a new LIFE). Is that correct? If so, I'll certainly agree to that (as I've explained before).

As far as anyone can determine, life started only once on this planet (or, if you believe in creationism, then twice for each species that has male and female members and once for all others). Since that first life, no new life has been created (with the one exception of that experiment recently published here where scientists created living DNA from bottled chemicals).

But again, as I've explained in other threads, the term "life" is a meaningless term to me. There are molecules that have a chain reaction of continuing to replicate themselves. I don't assign anything special to that at all. They're nano machines. The term "life" was created ages ago... long before people understood DNA and quantum physics. What's special to me is the emergent phenomenon of consciousness. THAT is what your "soul" is (for lack of a better word). Without that, there's no "soul". Without consciousness, there's no "person", just plain old quantum physics of particles interacting.

Sorry, that was a type several posts up. That should have been "It's no*t* NEW life." I accidentally typed a "w" instead of a "t" in the word "not". ...just in case it wasn't obvious from the context of the rest of the post.

CSharpner, yes when I talk about life in this context it is a new human life, not life on this planet. Yes I think we agree that sperm and egg seperate does not constitute a living being.

A unique Human life begins at conception. I consider all humans worthy of full human rights right from this point. You give full rights to a human only when they pass a certain stage of development. Can we agree on that?

A unique Human life begins at conception. I consider all humans worthy of full human rights right from this point. You give full rights to a human only when they pass a certain stage of development. Can we agree on that?

Let's change the choice of words a bit so that I can agree and see if you still agree:

"An organism with unique, human DNA begins at conception. I (FT) consider all such organisms worthy of full human rights right from this point. You (CS) acknowledge full rights to consciousness."

I'm troubled with the use of the term "a human" when referring to the organism. The term "a human", is generally perceived as "a person", so I've used more biological terms that I think we can both agree on.

Also note the significant difference in what it is we're acknowledge rights for. You're acknowledging rights (not "giving" rights) to the organism. I'm acknowledging rights to the consciousness. I perceive the organism as nothing more than bio-matter. The mind is the person.

I've been thinking about the word "organism" and believe I need to amend my text above to:

"A *stem cell* with unique, human DNA begins at conception. I (FT) consider all such stem cells worthy of full human rights right from this point. You (CS) acknowledge full rights to consciousness."

I replaced the word "organism" with the phrase "stem cell". The term "organism" implies "a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes." according to dictionary.com, so "organism" is the wrong word for that stem cell that results from 2 DNA strands mechanically zipping up together.

Sorry Csharpner, you are loosing my respect. Keep it simple. Pro-abortionists love to make complicated something as simple as basic biology to suite their agenda.

Basic biology, even for pro-abortionist, is that a unique human individual is formed at conception. Muddying the waters is only meant to sooth the conscience of someone who knows the truth that they support the killing of a innocent human child.

We would never debate over when a unique individual dog or cat was formed.

Muddying the waters is only meant to sooth the conscience of someone who knows the truth that they support the killing of a innocent human child.

I SOUNDLY reject this completely untrue statement!!!!!!!!!! You're saying that I agree with you, yet publicly state otherwise.

Sorry, I will not play that game.

You need to learn a little diplomacy here FT. I keep to myself anything that's not pertinent to the topic. You should too.

Basic biology, even for pro-abortionist, is that

Sorry, you do not get to define what my opinion is. Only I do. No, I do NOT believe that an "individual" is formed at conception. I believe biology: A stem cell with unique DNA is formed at conception. That is as clear and concise as can be said and even you can acknowledge that a new stem cell with unique DNA is formed at conception.

You start applying more vague and less defined terms as "individual" and "a human" and THAT starts muddying the waters.

Now, let's get focused back to what's going on in this discussion: I'm NOT trying to convince you to change your mind. All I'm doing is getting you to realize my opinion is EXACTLY as I say it is. Please clarify YOUR intent in this discussion. Then, we can move forward.

Second, no one is "pro-abortion". Even pro-choice supporters do not enjoy abortion.

I am. Since it's just bio-mass, I see no problems with it. I'd prefer though, that they'd choose not to get pregnant in the first place if they don't want kids. But, that's not based on any kind of morality... just common sense that they should not waste resources on a medical procedure when they could have just not gotten pregnant in the first place.

FT, I want you to see how disrespectful and untrue your statement appears by changing just enough to make it look like it's from me to you:

--------Sorry FT, you are loosing my respect. Keep it simple. Pro-lifers love to make complicated something as simple as basic biology to suite their agenda.

Basic biology, even for pro-lifers, is that a stem cell with unique DNA is formed at conception. Muddying the waters with vague terms like "individual" and "a human" is only meant to sooth the conscience of someone who knows the truth that they support forcing the pain, expense, permanent body scaring, and humiliation of an innocent woman with forced birth.--------

As ridiculous as that sounds to you is exactly how I perceive your statement. Do you understand that now?

Given SH's belief that a fetal and maternal blood are the same, take his advice on biology with skepticism.

This would be your inability to read once again. Start at the top and work your way down until you properly understand what was said. If you have questions, feel free to cite the statement and ask the necessary questions.

SH Csharp, you guys make abortionists look like idiots. An individual is formed at conception. This is a fact no matter how much you deny it. Your arguments as just as stupid as a Nazi saying a jew isnt human. Or a KKK member saying a black person isnt human.

It may be painful, but it is true. When you kill a human embryo, you kill a unique human individual. That individual is a person, no religious speculation, just science fact. Those for abortion need to justify why killing a unborn child is right to gain my respect. I can and do justify capital punishment, which is killing a human person.

Pro-abortion people show moral cowardise when instead of justifying the killing of a unborn child, instead use terms to sooth their conscience. Those that pushed jews into gas chambers did the same thing. Jews werent human to them, they were nothing but a clump of cells.

Also for SH I know you have problems understanding Christianity, but I am not Catholic.

Interesting as I don't pray to Mary, believe in transubstantiation, or think the Pope is infallable.

Imagine youre out hunting. You see something in the bushes - you think its a bear, but it could be a person. Would you pull the trigger? With regards to not knowing if a unborn baby is a human, what does it say about us if we are willing to kill something that has committed no offence, and may be human?

I just read a pro-choice website that admits some truth, A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. At least they have the guts to admit it is a child they are killing.

FT, I don't know what's going on in that mind of yours, but things were relatively OK during this discussion until you lashed out for no good reason. Your extreme closed mindedness is a new record in my experience and I've been debating and discussing things online since 1988.

You completely bailed out of a logical discussion and went into caveman mode lowering yourself to name calling and ridiculous comparisons. Rather than continue discussing, you just blurted out, "I'M RIGHT AND YOUR F'ING STUPID BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME!"

I've lost ALL respect for you and you've lost one of the few allies you had on this site. I gave you a completely honest, fair, and logical explanation of why I have the opinion that I do. Rather than just say, "I see where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree", you turned into a 4 year old ranting lunatic. I'm done with you.

When you kill a human embryo, you kill a unique human individual. That individual is a person, no religious speculation, just science fact.

That is not true. Person does not exist without sufficiently developed brain.

Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the hands for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other living species on Earth. Other higher-level thought processes of humans, such as self-awareness, rationality, and sapience,[7][8][9] are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a "person".

A person (from Latin: persona, meaning "mask")[1] is most broadly defined as any individual self-aware or rational being, or any entity having rights and duties; or often more narrowly defined as an individual human being in particular.

SH Csharp, you guys make abortionists look like idiots. An individual is formed at conception. This is a fact no matter how much you deny it. Your arguments as just as stupid as a Nazi saying a jew isnt human. Or a KKK member saying a black person isnt human.

Mantra. Repeat over and over until it becomes dogma. Zygotes are people zygotes are people...Jews are rodents Jews are rodents... Jesus is god Jesus is god... Same difference. A fanatic is a fanatic, they all need mantras to keep them focused. This is how we can TELL that they are fanatics.

It seems as though you simply get very mad when someone thinks something that you don't agree with. I'd recommend you examine why you do that.

In all seriousness, you really should examine why that is. There was no reason for your lashing out. We were having an honest, open discussion, then suddenly, you just broke down. There's something going on there and you really need to figure out why it is that we can carry on a rational discussion with you, in spite of how wrong we believe you are, but you are unable to. WHY?

All I asked for is a rational reason why people who are Pro-abortion consider some individual humans not worthy of rights, after making the valid statement, that according to science that a unique human individual is formed at conception.

BTW SH there are rational athiest groups out there who are pro life. These people are the logical athiests unlike yourself.

I take offense at that. My discussions are very calm, well thought out, and exceptionally logical. I *AM* a programmer, you know, and that logic flows out of my programming and into real life. I'm frequently called "Spock", "Data", or a robot. Please find an example of me avoiding rational discussion from my text above where I'm describing my opinion about abortion.

FT, I don't think you fully grasp the context of our discussion. I was NOT and have NOT been debating with you. I'm simply being polite by providing you with information about why I have the opinion I do. There was no reason or call for you to argue against it. It was a one way conversation from me to you to explain my position. It was NOT an argument, nor a debate. You were free to say, "Thanks for the info, but I still disagree". I did NOT take apart your explanation (with great effort).

Note that this is the first time I'm saying this and I'm ONLY saying it to explain the context of the discussion: I think your reason is illogical and irrational, but I've avoided saying so in order to be civil, polite, and respectful of your different opinion, as illogical as I see it. You have not reciprocated the respect I've shown you. Instead of thanking me for the information I've provided, you've lashed out and have broken all rules of civil discussion.

I have consistently shown you respect and provided extremely logical reasons for my opinion. At no point have I insisted you agree and at no point have I argued AGAINST YOUR opinion... I've only been providing an explanation of my own opinion.

Somehow, you refuse to engage in polite discussion and you have shown a lack of tolerance for anyone that disagrees with YOUR conclusion. I'll say this yet again: I have no problem with you having a different opinion. WHY do you refuse to do the same?

While I agree with how the term has been abused by the politically correct crowd, "hate speech" is made of 2 words in the English language and when I use the term, I mean speech with hate in it... the plain old English definition of each word. I do NOT subscribe to the PC distortion of the phrase. YOUR speech had hate in it, therefore, it's hate speech. I haven't used that term against you, but you clearly have posted hateful speech here.

All I asked for is a rational reason why people who are Pro-abortion consider some individual humans not worthy of rights, after making the valid statement, that according to science that a unique human individual is formed at conception.

Not entering the debate, but from a logical point of view from what I've read in this discussion:

1) No pro-choice supporters above "consider some individual humans not worthy of rights" based on what has been said in these comments. (except maybe rapists)

2)You said "after making the valid statement, that according to science that a unique human individual is formed at conception."

That is an assumption which is actually at the heart of the debate. To just say that it's true and base everything on that assumption when it has not been proven... well that's just bad logical reasoning. According to science? There's no scientific consensus out there that says "that a unique human individual is formed at conception".

Neither was I. Simply saying anything that FT doesn't like automatically enrolls you in his debate. Welcome to FT's debate. :(

2)You said "after making the valid statement, that according to science that a unique human individual is formed at conception."

That is an assumption which is actually at the heart of the debate.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. FT believes that science has already resolved that a "unique human individual" exists at the moment of conception. No such scientific conclusion has been made. This must be where FT's consternation originates. He thinks it's been concluded by science and can't comprehend why we don't "acknowledge" it. FT, it's because science has made NO SUCH conclusion. That's where the fault of your understanding lies.

Look FT, I'm perfectly fine with you believing that "a unique individual human" begins at conception. I respectfully disagree with that *OPINION*. And it *IS* an *OPINION*.

Sorry to disagree, sorry that science doesnt agree with you, a human PERSON is formed at conseption.

This is one point where the science is settled. Your argument is that at conception a bunch of cells is formed (starting out at 1). The science fact is the difference between you and that bunch of cells is ONLY the quantity of cells. You were a unique individual AT CONCEPTION. Everything needed for you was there AT CONCEPTION.

If we were talking about a dog, cat, cow, and I said a dog, cat, cow wasnt a dog, cat, cow until I said it was you would rightly call me a stupid. At Conception, a dog is a dog, a cow is a cow, a human is a human.

Sorry to disagree, sorry that science doesnt agree with you, a human PERSON is formed at conseption. ... This is one point where the science is settled.

Please site sources.

Your argument is that at conception a bunch of cells is formed (starting out at 1)

Again, FT, I'm NOT DEBATING ABORTION WITH YOU!!!! How can you STILL not understand that? All I'm doing is providing you with a reason why I have the opinion I do. You can take it or leave it. I don't care one way or the other. If you disagree, that's fine. I don't need an explanation of why you disagree. Why are you doing this? I provided a clear explanation of this side of the issue for your own benefit. There's no reason for you to try to rip up my reasoning. I'm NOT doing that to yours, even though I disagree with your reasoning. Do you understand that? Please answer that question.

Sorry to disagree, sorry that science doesnt agree with you, a human PERSON is formed at conseption.

This is one point where the science is settled. Your argument is that at conception a bunch of cells is formed (starting out at 1). The science fact is the difference between you and that bunch of cells is ONLY the quantity of cells. You were a unique individual AT CONCEPTION. Everything needed for you was there AT CONCEPTION.

Well the science is settled that you are a unique "plan" at conception. Your DNA is established at that time and there's no question of that, but DNA isn't necessarily life. You shed millions of functional DNA molecules every day and that isn't alive.

You're welcome to have your opinion on the topic of abortion, but do you think it is right to enforce your opinion on other people? Would you want me to enforce my opinion on you? Having the choice to have an abortion is necessary under your own definition of freedom and liberty.

Your argument is that at conception a bunch of cells is formed (starting out at 1)

Not an "argument". Just basic science that's part of the foundation of my opinion. Do you disagree that a single cell is formed at conception and that it later becomes more cells?

You were a unique individual AT CONCEPTION

That's your opinion and I respect that, even though you have no respect for a differing opinion. I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

You see, FT, you think your OPINION is established scientific fact, and it's not. I'm not debating abortion with you, but I *AM* questioning your methods. Please site references where science has settled that personhood begins at conception. Also, I challenge you to define "person" as it relates to this discussion.

Do you understand that people can disagree and be OK with that? Do you have the capability to say, "I disagree, but that's OK" and not have to tear into the other person with whom you disagree?

I didn't exist at conception. A single stem cell existed. It didn't have eyes, a brain, lungs, circulatory system, heart, stomach, arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet, toes, skin, liver, etc... It had nothing that I need. Months later, those things were finally built and up and running. Shortly after that, I finally popped into existence.

When providing reasons why I am against abortion pro-abortionists on this board try to rip me to shreads, say I am against women, attack my religion even though I don't use religious arguments.

It is interesting how Pro-abortionists give no scientific evidence that a unborn child is NOT a unique individual, they just give an OPINION that it is not unique human individual, based on their subjective opinion on what constitutes a human. When shown that, they get angry.

I understand the reason behind abortion. It easier to kill a problem than deal with a child not planned for. Is it right to kill a child that you do not want because you screwed up? Thats the question.

My OPINION is that it is more evil to deny that what you are killing is a human child, than actually killing the unborn human child.

If we were talking about a dog, cat, cow, and I said a dog, cat, cow wasnt a dog, cat, cow until I said it was you would rightly call me a stupid. At Conception, a dog is a dog, a cow is a cow, a human is a human

You've said that several times and I've not commented on it, but I will now.

Cow, dog, cat, relate to "human", not "PERSON". Do you understand the difference between "human" and "person"? I assumed you did at first, but now I think you don't. Also, you are wrong about what I would say. I would say that at the moment of conception, there is a stem cell for all sexually reproducible species. A stem cell is not a human, a cow, a cat, nor a dog, and is certainly not a PERSON. The DNA inside the stem cell is cow DNA or dog DNA or cat DNA or human DNA but is not, in itself, a dog, cat, cow, or human.

I know you think you're doing that, but WHY? My only purpose on this thread is to refute this statement you made:

Pro-abortion people believe that abortion is ok. That all people do not have the same rights

I explained to you, with much detail, we indeed do believe all people have the same rights. You and I simply disagree on what constitutes a "person"... when a "person" begins.

I don't care if you think my reasoning is logical or consistent. I'm not debating it with you. I provided you an explanation of how we came to our conclusions. You can take it or leave it.

Note FT, that I have still, to this moment, NOT explained to you why YOUR opinion is illogical. Why? Because I'm not debating abortion here. I'm simply providing ROM (read only material :) for your reference. I *KNOW* you disagree and I *KNOW* you think it's wrong. Nobody cares about your details of why. Take it or leave it.

When providing reasons why I am against abortion pro-abortionists on this board try to rip me to shreads

And as you know, I've NOT done this to you throughout this entire discussion, yet YOU are attempting doing this to ME! Again, I ask WHY?

It is interesting how Pro-abortionists give no scientific evidence that a unborn child is NOT a unique individual

My GOD! What is wrong with you? Have you not read ANYTHING I've written? The DNA is certainly unique, as we've all agreed. No one ever disagreed with that. But, the term "individual" is very vague. It could be interpreted many ways. Yes, it's an individual cell. Not, it's not an individual "person". It's not even a human being. It's a cell. Yes, its DNA is unique.

they just give an OPINION that it is not unique human individual, based on their subjective opinion on what constitutes a human

Look, FT, when a person begins is 100% opinion. No one can prove exactly when this happens. It's a majorly difficult philosophical question. No one knows and likely never will. All that can be offered on this is opinion.

When shown that, they get angry.

So far, the only one getting angry at opposing opinions is YOU. I'm getting angry at your lack of diplomacy, your lack of treating me fairly like I'm treating you, your lack of understanding that I'm not debating abortion with you, that you can't just accept that our opinions are different and move on, that you insist on trying to explain why you think my opinion is wrong while I've been biting my lip during this whole thread NOT to do that to YOU.

It is interesting how Pro-abortionists give no scientific evidence that a unborn child is NOT a unique individual, they just give an OPINION that it is not unique human individual, based on their subjective opinion on what constitutes a human. When shown that, they get angry.

This is a perfect spin FT. Very well written. So well written that I think it deserves a phrase by phrase breakdown.

It is interesting how Pro-abortionists give no scientific evidence that a unborn child is NOT a unique individual

Actually, it isn't interesting. As I said above, you are an individual plan. So that's a correct analysis of what I said because I maintain the opposite. That strawman number 1.

they just give an OPINION that it is not unique human individual

Correct. The reason for that is we're not 100% sure, without a doubt, when conciousness begins. But that isn't the argument. So far you've simply summed up our stance. The argument is, does life start at conception. We say no.

Is it right to kill a child that you do not want because you screwed up?

Absolutely not. But, it's perfectly fine to get rid of biomass that's NOT a child. Do you not understand that we don't believe that the biomass, without a functioning brain, is NOT a child?

Thats the question

No it's not. The question is when does the person begin. EVERYTHING rides on that. I've told you what my opinion is on that and why. You can take it or leave it. I don't care if you disagree and you don't need to bother me with why you disagree. I know why. You believe a person begins at conception. I've explained why I believe it's later. Why can't you just accept the difference of opinion and move on? This is really perplexing why you can't do that.

That's right, completely subjective. It is subjective to each of us because we don't know. I think it's around week 22 or so, hence why I'm against late term abortion unless it is for the health of the mother.

When shown that, they get angry.

No, we get angry when you lie and call us child killers or pro-abortion. Not all pro-choice advocates are for abortion. Many are simply for the right to have it available.

The argument is whether you want to restrict someone else's freedom because of your opinion. Right now our stance is "yes, you do".

My OPINION is that it is more evil to deny that what you are killing is a human child, than actually killing the unborn human child.

Great. Thanks for the opinion. My opinion is that killing a person is far more evil than any kind of denial. Of course, you know when I believe the person begins.

But now you've opened a whole new can of worms on yourself. You believe that actually killing an actual child is LESS evil that believing it's not wrong. WOW! BTW, this is a side topic as we're not talking about killing an existing child.

Anyway, FT, We know you think personhood begins at conception. I don't really care why. I know your opinion. You know my opinion. I happily accept that our opinions are different and I can move on. Seriously... I honestly want to know. Why can't you accept the differences and just move on? What is it about you that insists on slamming us with your opinion?

This discussion hasn't been about abortion for quote some time. It's about YOU.

The whole crux of your position, free, rests upon the premise that a person is a unique, human individual, and that a unique human individual is a person. The first proposition is arguably true, in that no non-human creature has been found to possess sufficient cognitive abilities to qualify under the more robust definitions of personhood, except for some other primates, and only in a limited sense after much training. And we're not talking about killing animals anyway.

However, your second claim, that all unique human individuals are persons is proved false by observation, even under the loosest criterion for personhood. Many humans are born so severely deformed that they will never attain any level of cognitive awareness at all. Most of these die shortly after being born, but others go through childhood and into adulthood never being able to do more than stare at a wall and drool. These we call "persons" and prosecute someone who kills them as a murderer because of the relationship these individuals have with real, undeniable persons. It would be rude and uncivil to deny those persons who love such a shell as a son or daughter such simple fictions. Those without such relationships we allow to die if their debility is profound enough to cause it. Because they are not persons.

FT, I seriously want to know if you have the ability to say, "Thanks for the explanation. I respectfully disagree." without having to ARGUE. Yes, you disagree. WE GET IT! We got it on the first post. You've seen our explanations. Why can't you just let it be? Or, do you have no self control and you are compelled to continue until we are converted (as opposed to continue until we find common ground that may or MAY NOT be what you initially came into the discussion with)?

No can of worms on my side. Its your side that has the worms. Your side deals in death, not mine.

I'm sorry, which of us supports capital punishment? Our stances appear to be Us - Until you're born, you have nothing.You - Before you're born you have everything. Once you're born, fuck you, don't take mine.

Ha I knew youd misconstrue that. I think it was pretty obvious (to non-fanatics) that I was saying that the same fanatic mindset that links jews to rodents, or wandering preachers to god, will do the same with zygotes and people and then come to believe it as if it were incontrovertable fact.

Like you do sir. There is little difference, apparently, between the way your mind works and the way a fanatic racist mind works.

You both claim that science backs your beliefs although it most certainly does not. But that doesnt stop either of you from repeating the fallacy over and over and over again, as if it were a compulsion or a nervous tic. And neither logic nor evidence have any effect on you.

My GOD! What is wrong with you? Have you not read ANYTHING I've written?

This person is a fanatic and you have yet to drown out the mantra that is ringing in his ears. Careful- mantras are often the only things fanatics have.cont.

This is one point where the science is settled. Your argument is that at conception a bunch of cells is formed (starting out at 1). The science fact is the difference between you and that bunch of cells is ONLY the quantity of cells.

This is certainly false. The difference between me and bunch of cells is primarily in quality of their connections and relationships, not in their quantity. Elephants would have more rights than humans if quantity of cells would be important.

This person is a fanatic and you have yet to drown out the mantra that is ringing in his ears. Careful- mantras are often the only things fanatics have.

Sadly, this appears to be true. I often am faced with this type of non-argument when it comes to people defending something religious. It ALWAYS falls to this. The conversation starts with platitudes (admittedly from both sides), then we dig down into how we come to the opinions we have civilly and logically, but then, usually without warning, they back completely out of the logical discussion and resort back to shouting their vague platitudes, usually in the style of, "Well, I'm right and you're wrong and it doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't change what is."

Otto you are nuts calling me a racist, actually you are just plain nuts. I don't believe in any race other than the human race and I consider all people from conception to natural death fully human and equal.

SH - Unlike you I can justify my capital punishment stance logically while understand the anti-capital punishment stance of those in the pro-life camp. What type of person would kill an innocent child then fight for the life of a murder or a rapist. At least Pro-life people who are against capital punshment are consistant. So how can you sleep at night knowing that you believe in saving a murderers life, yet wont do the same for a innocent childs life?

CSharpner, agreeing to respectfully disagree on abortion is impossible. Its just like a Jew respectfully disagreeing with a natzi over death camp policies.

CSharp, explain to me how a Jew/Black person can respectully agree to disagree with a Natzi/KKK over their racism?

CSharp, explain to me how a Jew/Black person can respectully agree to disagree with a Natzi/KKK over their racism?

You're neither a Jew debating with a Nazi, nor a black debating with a Klan member, nor are you a single stem cell debating with an abortion doctor. You're one private citizen with an opinion that's different from an opinion of another private citizen, neither of which will ever perform an abortion and neither of which is in uturo.

SH - Unlike you I can justify my capital punishment stance logically while understand the anti-capital punishment stance of those in the pro-life camp. What type of person would kill an innocent child then fight for the life of a murder or a rapist. At least Pro-life people who are against capital punshment are consistant. So how can you sleep at night knowing that you believe in saving a murderers life, yet wont do the same for a innocent childs life?

One need only look at your social policies and ask you the same question.

I consider all people from conception to natural death fully human and equal.

Well then if we're all God's children, why is Jesus so special? Thanks to Jimmy Carr.

Csharpner - standing by while watching Jews being put into camps, or blacks being strung up and not speaking up makes the person who watches either a coward or complicit in the action. As SH has found out, I'm neither a coward or do I want to be complicit in the killing of an innocent person.

I'm duing my moral duty as a member of society and speaking up for those who cannot defend themselves. What I hope to accomplish is that by speaking the truth, that there will be less killing of innocent unborn children.

SH - I think you asked a serious question. Regarding my social policies, what is your question? Is it how I can be pro-life and for capital punishment?

I'm duing my moral duty as a member of society and speaking up for those who cannot defend themselves. What I hope to accomplish is that by speaking the truth, that there will be less killing of innocent unborn children.

No one here's performing abortions.

Now, what if you're wrong? What if we're right and reality is that there's NO person until consciousness?

Now, why did you bail on a civilized discussion and scale down to name calling. I told you openly and honestly my opinion and you turned into an ass.

As SH has found out, I'm neither a coward or do I want to be complicit in the killing of an innocent person.

It is surely our moral duty to speak up and interfere if an innocent person is murdered. But in this particular case, there is no person, because person is in the brain. It is just collection of human cells, not a person. For me, the idea that we should grant rights to a collection of cells without brain is absurd.

Second, no one is "pro-abortion". Even pro-choice supporters do not enjoy abortion.

I am. Since it's just bio-mass, I see no problems with it. I'd prefer though, that they'd choose not to get pregnant in the first place if they don't want kids. But, that's not based on any kind of morality... just common sense that they should not waste resources on a medical procedure when they could have just not gotten pregnant in the first place.

This is - after your great efforts to communicate with "freethinking" - disappointing. You don't even acknowledge the psychological problems of women. You don't take into account that not everyone's life is so easy and predictable as you picture it.

Why can't you just accept the difference of opinion and move on? This is really perplexing why you can't do that

You've probed into the realm of subconsciousness. Every person needs some amount of self-esteem to carry on without developing disturbances.There are people with very low inner self-esteem. Lack of education, lack of a job, lack of a partner etc. are endangering the self-esteem. These people are forced to borrow their self-esteem from some social group they are a member of. And they go berserk if that group is attacked. It's no more a question of ratio or decency for them it's a question of saving one's psychological life.

LMAO! Well, his arguments are directed at ME and I know I'm not performing them. Damnit Jim! I'm a programmer, not a doctor!

Besides, he doesn't know anymore than we do (and I'd say he knows LESS than we do, but that's beside the point). So, according to his logic, we should all default to the earliest argument for personhood. According to THAT logic, we'd have to consider each egg and each sperm a person.

So, are you saying that because some women have psychological problems with abortion I should hope that all women choose not to have one, even the ones that have no psychological problems? The response text on this site is only so large. I can't cover every conceivable outcome.

You don't take into account that not everyone's life is so easy and predictable as you picture it.

I made no mention at all of the difficulty, ease, or predicability of anyone's life. That's outside the scope of my opinion on when personhood begins. But regarding the side topic of whether I'm for or against abortion, do I need to cover every single, individual case and explain why I'm for or against that particular decision? There's only so much time in a person's life to write text.

You've probed into the realm of subconsciousness. Every person needs some amount of self-esteem to carry on without developing disturbances.There are people with very low inner self-esteem. Lack of education, lack of a job, lack of a partner etc. are endangering the self-esteem. These people are forced to borrow their self-esteem from some social group they are a member of. And they go berserk if that group is attacked. It's no more a question of ratio or decency for them it's a question of saving one's psychological life.

EXCELLENT perception! I'll be fair and say I don't know for sure if this is what's wrong with FT though, but it's something to consider nonetheless.

I'm duing my moral duty as a member of society and speaking up for those who cannot defend themselves. What I hope to accomplish is that by speaking the truth, that there will be less killing of innocent unborn children.

"I'm duing my moral duty as a member of society and speaking up for those who cannot defend themselves. What I hope to accomplish is that by speaking the truth, that there will be less killing of innocent (Volksdeutsche, whales, xians, lab animals, etc)"

-You're a fanatic of the same sort. You have complete disregard of and contempt for any facts or arguments which would moderate your position. Am i right?

Some fanatics are so extreme as to shoot abortion doctors or sink whalers. Anything to defend their mantra. Frajo is wrong to compare you with the downtrodden, because you are dysfunctional while most of them are not. But then Frajo is a little bit the fanatic dogmatist him/herself.

Why can't you just accept the difference of opinion and move on? This is really perplexing why you can't do that

You've probed into the realm of subconsciousness. Every person needs some amount of self-esteem to carry on without developing disturbances.There are people with very low inner self-esteem. Lack of education, lack of a job, lack of a partner etc. are endangering the self-esteem. These people are forced to borrow their self-esteem from some social group they are a member of. And they go berserk if that group is attacked. It's no more a question of ratio or decency for them it's a question of saving one's psychological life.

I'd say otherwise. Try engaging him in level conversation rather than blasting at him from time to time and you may see a different interaction between yourselves.

Are you for walking the streets of those who decided to deploy agent orange or A-bombs?

Dogma. I defend my stance with argument, while Frajo tends to assemble teams of downrating fanatics. He/she is probably capable of his/her own self-defense don't you think? Or are you being condescending? I would think Frajo would find this insulting.

W R O N G. That's a child's concept of it to be sure. Why is it called SELF esteem?

I agree. Self esteem is one's sense of self worthiness within a group. People with low self esteem will throw themselves totally within a group to get acceptance. People with high self esteem don't really need the groups and can march to the beat of their own drum because they know that they are worthy. Self esteem is certainly an internal feedback in the human activity matrix of the brain.

Frajo tends to assemble teams of downrating fanatics. He/she is probably capable of his/her own self-defense don't you think? Or are you being condescending? I would think Frajo would find this insulting.

Don't become crazy now. We all downrank Quantum Condrum because he's senseless. Sometimes you get a little senseless and a lot of people downrank you. It's not a conspiracy.

I'm duing my moral duty as a member of society and speaking up for those who cannot defend themselves. What I hope to accomplish is that by speaking the truth, that there will be less killing of innocent unborn children.

Hmmm. I suppose I should do my moral duty as a member of society and speak up for the women who would be harmed by people trying to make abortion illegal. What I would hope to accomplish is that by speaking the truth, that there will be less tyranny of innocent women.

So according to your logic, I have to do that and argue against you?

Ooooooooooor, we could be civil and say, "I understand where you're coming from, though I respectfully disagree.".

I'm duing my moral duty as a member of society and speaking up for those who cannot defend themselves. What I hope to accomplish is that by speaking the truth, that there will be less killing of innocent unborn children.

BTW, I meant what's your intention with ME? What do you intend to accomplish by telling me you think I'm wrong?

You've probed into the realm of subconsciousness. Every person needs some amount of self-esteem to carry on without developing disturbances.There are people with very low inner self-esteem. Lack of education, lack of a job, lack of a partner etc. are endangering the self-esteem.

You didn't process the phrase "There are people with very low _inner_ self-esteem". If e.g. you've a handicap of some kind, and everyone is bullying you. _Then_ it helps to find some _outer_ self-esteem. Being a top athlete or a maths genius.A person with real inner self-esteem, however, doesn't need any of these helps. This person knows his worth, even if he gets no appreciation by others. A hero, otoh, is somebody who dares something everybody else would have liked to do but didn't have the guts for.

That's a child's concept of it to be sure. Why is it called SELF esteem?